John McFall: May I support the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by asking the Foreign Secretary to dismiss any suggestions that the rebate should be discussed before the bloated CAP programme is rectified? There should be a common EU-US policy on the Doha round in Hong Kong to allow developing countries to get at least half a chance of getting their goods into the rich man's network. It is only after those things have been achieved that we can even begin to discuss the rebate.

Greg Hands: I appreciate what the Minister says about the arms embargo, but is it not incongruous that his Government should support the Uzbekistan's continued membership of the NATO partnership for peace programme?

Keith Simpson: Sadly, from what the Foreign Secretary has just said, it is clear that the Syrians have a track record of refusing to comply either with bilateral or international pressure. It is obvious that the Syrians are not going to co-operate fully with the United Nations. Can the Foreign Secretary say why sanctions were not included in the most recent resolution, given that the Syrians appear only to move, very slightly, when they face the direct threat of action. Merely warning them again and again does not seem to produce any result whatsoever.

Alistair Burt: I received a fax this lunchtime from six Zimbabwean asylum seekers who are currently detained in my constituency at Yarl's Wood. They travelled on South African passports, which is a well known escape route and they are due to be deported to South Africa, despite the current ban on returning Zimbabweans to that country. They are terrified by the prospect because of the known close relationship between the Zimbabwean and South African security forces. Can the Foreign Secretary guarantee the safety of those women if they are returned to South Africa; and if not, will he intervene to stop their deportation?

Greg Mulholland: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision regarding the sale of green belt land, and for connected purposes.
	A few weeks after being elected to this place, I was invited to visit one of the farms in my constituency. Contrary to perception—representing a Leeds seat—there is a substantial amount of farmland in the middle of my constituency.
	During my visit to Wrinkle Wood farm, I learned much of the situation in which farmers find themselves. I was told by the farmer, Mrs. Jennie Clayton, that she had been approached by a company called English Land Partnership, which had bought the plot opposite, at Cookeridge Pastures, and was selling the land on the basis of future development of the site.
	I was confused because I was under the impression that the area was designated as protected green belt land. Mrs. Clayton showed me a letter and the video that she had been given. I saw the grand plans for housing that the company had produced. Indeed, it was selling plots in this fictional development. I learned that this was the practice of land banking. I had never heard of it, and when I speak to others their reaction is the same.
	According to investor.words.com, land banking is the practice of acquiring land and holding it for future use. In reality, land banking is the practice of purchasing green belt land for a reasonable and often low price, and selling it off in plots for a substantial mark-up to private investors.
	Ironically, I am presenting the Bill in the year that the green belt is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It is the 50th anniversary of the first Government circular telling councils to designate areas of green belt land.
	Land banking companies generally purchase green belt land for a very reasonable price but are all too reluctant to reveal exactly how much they have paid for it. Research shows that the land, if purchased at the average rate in a particular area, can be sold off for an extraordinary profit margin. Land bankers can often sell land for up to 100 times the price that they paid for it. In my constituency, our research shows that the average selling price for a 2,500 sq ft plot of land in the Yorkshire and Humber area is £115. However, similar sized plots in my constituency are being sold by English Land Partnership for £18,750.
	The problem is that investors have virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose with such purchases until the land is given change of use. Then, when they have tens of thousands of pounds tied up, they realise that there are no plans for homes. Their only chance to get their money back is to get permission for development. That can put unacceptable and potentially unethical pressure on local authorities to review green belt areas.
	The success of land banking from the companies' point of view is that their development plans may become self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, having made a fortune from their sales, they need to push the process through to its logical conclusion. That becomes a benefit and not a necessity. There is a huge question mark over the character of the so-called land banking companies. All too often it is merely a get-rich scam that is being peddled by fly-by-night companies, set up to carry out the scurrilous process of land banking. There have been instances of companies being investigated for fraud and partners being banned from being directors or managers of companies.
	The real concern is the selling practices of land banking companies. There have been cases where investors were told that planning permission would be granted within a year. In other cases, investors were assured that they would see a return on their investments within a year. The companies involved simply say that they are liable only for statements made in writing by one of their directors, thus turning a blind eye to sales people, who are often self-employed, who are making misleading claims about the likelihood of change of use.
	There are disgruntled investors not only in this country. The Australian Government are taking action against the land banker, Stephen Cleeve of the European Land Sales Partnership under the Australian Fair Trading Act. The situation in this country, however, is more complex. When approached by a solicitor acting on behalf of disgruntled investors, the Department of Trade and Industry replied that it cannot, or will not, take action against land banking companies because they are partnerships, not companies. The DTI only has the jurisdiction to investigate companies, not partnerships. Officers from the Serious Fraud Office visited farms in my constituency, but the SFO is not interested in investigating such companies, despite the mounting evidence against them.
	That is why we must seek to amend the law. The central purpose of my Bill is to protect the green belt, which covers 13 per cent. of England. Wales has only recently introduced its own green belt policy, while Scotland has a broader concept of green belt. The Barker report, which said that 140,000 extra homes needed to be built every year, has given rise to further fears that new development could eat into the green belt. The Bill would strengthen green belt legislation, as it would seek to enshrine green belt status in statute, and it would enable local authorities to designate green belt land with enhanced protected and legal status. It seeks to devolve decision making about green belt status to local authorities, removing the Secretary of State's power to overrule a local decision to refuse planning permission or designation.
	The Bill would effectively outlaw the scurrilous practice of land banking, and would require that designated green belt land can be sold and marketed only as protected land, not under the guise of any future development. It has the support of members of all parties and of people from all four corners of the country. I am delighted to have the backing of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, whose head of policy, Henry Oliver, said:
	"These companies are playing a reckless, cynical game with one of our most important environmental assets. Unscrupulous sale and sub-division of Green Belt land needs to stop. It's ugly, bad for the landscape and undermines public confidence in our planning system."
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has agreed to be a signatory to the Bill, as his constituency borders my own. The issue was raised last year by the former Labour Member for Milton Keynes, North East, Brian White, who reported that a company called ELS stood to make £3 million from the sale of plots in Brickhill in his constituency.
	When I left Wrinkle Wood farm after learning about the practice of land banking I pledged to do what I could to raise the issue. I am delighted to introduce the Bill, and to draw the attention of the House to a genuine local concern that is also a national problem. I urge the House to grant the Bill a Second Reading, and I hope that as more and more hon. Members on both sides of the House encounter the dangerous and dubious practice of land banking, they will give the Bill their full support.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Mulholland, Norman Lamb, Norman Baker, Dr. John Pugh, Andrew Stunell, Dr. Vincent Cable, Lorely Burt, Lembit Öpik, Bob Russell, Tim Farron and Philip Davies.

Wayne David: On Bulgaria, will he accept that the recently elected coalition Government, led by Sergei Stanishev, have gone a long way to tackling those problems by introducing a new criminal court, which should be very effective?

Douglas Alexander: The matter is best addressed by more effective and deeper co-operation between member states of the European Union. Those of us who share the ambition to stop that outrageous and unjust trade in humans must work together effectively, and the European Union provides an architecture that allows us to give practical expression to that shared commitment.
	We are confident that both countries can be ready to join the EU on schedule in January 2007. However, they cannot afford to be complacent, not least in the face of the challenges that have been described. They need to take robust action now to address the concerns that the Commission identified in the reports. Of course, we will continue to provide bilateral and other assistance targeted at the matters that matter most. For example, we already have three advisers working in Romania on tackling corruption. The accession coincides with ongoing discussions on the next financial perspective for the EU from 2007–13—that was discussed in the Chamber only this afternoon—and the cost of the enlargement still remains largely a matter for negotiation.
	That said, most EU expenditure on Bulgaria and Romania has been provisionally agreed for 2007–10, assuming that accession takes place on 1 January 2007. That will total approximately €15 billion over the next three years. Of that, roughly €5.5 billion will be devoted to agriculture-related spending and approximately €8 billion to structural funds. I stress that those are indicative figures. Of course, that is a significant amount of money by any standard.
	However, as hon. Members will know, most of the costs of accession are borne by the new member states and the objective is to ensure that, over time, net recipients start to contribute to the EU budget. Spain and Ireland are good examples of that. Of the newcomers, Slovenia and Cyprus's purchasing power in terms of GDP per capita overtook that of Portugal this year.
	Let me consider clause 2. Under the terms of the accession treaty, the UK has the ability to decide the level of access it offers Bulgarian and Romanian workers up to a maximum of seven years after accession. Clause 2 gives the Government wide flexibility in deciding that. With accession more than a year—possibly two years—away, it is simply too early to decide what the level of access should be. We may want to continue the current work permit scheme. Conversely, we may decide to offer more lightly regulated access, along similar lines to that given to workers of the eight central and eastern European countries that joined in the 2004 enlargement.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman also knows that the Government claimed that the constitution was necessary for enlargement. We did not believe that, and we have been proved right. We were also right about the Nice treaty.
	The European Union has helped to nurture the development of free societies in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and that same process can now benefit Bulgaria and Romania. Romania and Bulgaria have had unhappy histories in the past century. They were fought over by the Nazis and the Soviets and enslaved by communism. It is to those countries' enormous credit that they have come so far so fast since they became free in 1990. They have had to relearn not only democracy and the market economy but the more fundamental principles that underpin a liberal society: the rule of law, tolerance and respect for freedom. It has not always been easy going for them. Nor, as I shall explain later, may they be quite there yet.
	The attraction of EU membership has been of huge importance as an incentive to all the former communist countries to choose a liberal future, free from the authoritarianism that has done so much to damage that part of the world. The accession process is not an easy one. Indeed, it is far harder than it should be. Much of the so-called acquis communautaire that these countries have to adopt is totally unnecessary and, indeed, damaging. Nevertheless, it is a tribute to their leaders that the European Union has been able to accept their candidature. I also congratulate my colleague Geoffrey van Orden, the European Parliament rapporteur, on Bulgaria's accession.
	The Commission communication of 25 October raised a number of serious concerns about Romania and Bulgaria's readiness for the hoped for accession date of 1 January 2007. The Minister will be aware of Commissioner Olli Rehn's remarks—indeed, he quoted some of them. The Commissioner said that while
	"over fifty per cent. of all areas monitored are non-problematic",
	the Commission had serious concerns about 10 per cent. of areas. In particular, he said
	"The failure to obtain even a single . . . conviction for high-level corruption in recent years . . . is a . . . serious concern in both countries."
	Does the Minister envisage any prosecutions taking place before accession can be agreed?
	The Commission's report states that immediate action is needed in a range of sectors if Romania and Bulgaria are to be ready for 2007. It gives many sombre specific warnings. The list is a long one:
	"urgent and forceful action is needed to demonstrate the ability of Bulgaria and Romania to combat corruption effectively . . . both countries suffer from high levels of piracy and counterfeiting . . . Bulgaria and Romania do not possess sufficient border infrastructure . . . . specific restrictive measures may need to be imposed to prevent the internal security of the EU from being compromised . . . Bulgaria has failed to curb organised crime . . . here too the rule of law must be made to prevail . . . animal disease control is flawed in Bulgaria and Romania as serious diseases appear to be endemic."
	That last criticism has particular salience given the current concern about avian flu. The report also doubts that either country yet has the capability to manage the structural funds to which they would be entitled. Given the Commission's long-running inability to audit its own expenditure, that is a real concern.

Doug Henderson: I strongly support the Bill, because I strongly support the principle—and, I hope, the practice—that Romania and Bulgaria should be given the opportunity to join the European Union. It will not be an automatic process, as earlier exchanges between the occupants of the Front Benches showed.
	It is not easy to meet the acquis, and it will be difficult for Romania and Bulgaria, just as it was for the other countries of eastern Europe. It is not only the politicians and the bureaucrats of the countries, but the people who need to be inspired to meet the acquis. The challenge now is even more difficult than it was five, six or seven years ago, because at that time it was conclusive that joining the EU was the right thing to do. In 1995, 1996 and 1997, the EU was a forward-looking organisation that played an important role in the world, with strong economies—especially in Britain after 1997—and a sense of social responsibility and common purpose. So it was easier to inspire the people of the countries seeking to accede to the European Union with the conviction that it was the right thing to do.
	In today's climate, the people of Romania and Bulgaria will ask the same questions, and will have to weigh up whether the gains will be greater than the doubts. I have no doubt that the gains will outweigh the doubts, but before the people of those countries reach that conclusion they will ask several questions about accession and the EU. Those questions will be similar to those that are being asked in Britain and the other member states.
	I recall visiting Bucharest in 1997 and talking to people on the streets. They were very conscious of their country's history over the past 40 years. They supposedly lived under communism, although I think that they lived in a state that was nearer fascism—it is a matter of political definition. They had no freedoms, there was little collective social responsibility and the state was isolated. That was not just political theory, because it felt very real when walking the streets of Bucharest. I was there on a wet November day—it bore some resemblance to parts of Newcastle or Glasgow on a bad day—and noticed all the Soviet-style buildings that had been imposed on Romania, which is Francophile, if anything. Public services were poor and there were many beggars and other obvious signs of poverty on the streets. There was also a clear sense of corruption and a fear of being caught out, because if that happened, those exercising the corruption could impose their will on the individual concerned. I remain convinced that the people of Romania—I suspect that the same is true of the people of Bulgaria—wanted to put that behind them and look forward to a better way.
	That was what people were looking for then, but judging the specifics today—this is my main point—is not so straightforward. Things have improved in Romania and Bulgaria as they move towards the acquis and become more involved with the rest of Europe and the world, but there are, of course, still gaps that must be filled in meeting the acquis.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend describes today's EU as being something quite different from the EU of 1997, when he was Europe Minister. I certainly agree with him, but is not the difference that whereas the EU, with the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland, was then a rich man's club, since the last accession in May last year people are looking at the EU as something other than a rich man's club and are beginning to wonder whether they want to pay the bills?

Kevin Barron: That is quite true. Unfortunately, we do not hear such debates on EU legislation.
	As I said, my connections with Bulgaria go back 20 years, as I first visited the country in May 1985. My second visit was in 1990 as an elections observer, and that was followed by another two visits with the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the 1990s, when we saw genuine changes in the nature of politics and political parties. The Union of Democratic Forces came on to the scene in the early 1990s. The only part of its ideology that I could grasp was the fact that it was anti-communist—I did not know where it stood either economically or on anything else. However, it was testing the changes that were taking place. In 1985, Tzum, the big supermarket in Sofia, had plenty of things on its shelves, but in the 1990s there were only broken biscuits. Because of the country's closeness to Russia, its economy was shattered by the changes in eastern Europe and it took a long time for it to recover.
	There have been many changes of Government in Bulgaria, all of them affected by changes in an economy which, with the exception of the past five years, was in a negative condition. Elections were held in June this year, when there was a fightback by the Bulgarian Socialist party—the new name for the Communist party. In 2000, I was invited by General Secretary Sergei Stanishev, who has since been appointed Prime Minister, to his party's congress. I went to Bulgaria on a family holiday and stopped at Sofia for the 45th congress of the BSP—quite an achievement, because the party had existed for only eight years. International observers, however, witnessed genuine debate in the BSP among old communists and new members such as Sergei, who has since assumed the premiership, about the need to change both their ideology and their view of the outside world.
	There have been changes both in Bulgarian political parties and in the nature of the country's Parliament. After my visit in early June 2002 to the BSP congress, I was invited to visit the country as a guest of the British embassy and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On 1 July, I made a speech on ethical standards in public life and the experience of the British Parliament. I arrived early, however, to participate in a weekend seminar with Bulgarian Members of Parliament on standards and privileges. The day before I was due to give my speech at the embassy, I was asked to give an interview to a daily newspaper in Sofia. I was asked about standards in public life, but suddenly the reporter asked what I would do if traffic police impounded my car. A Bulgarian MP had had a falling-out with the traffic police after his car was impounded. He went to the pound and demanded its return, banging his fist on the counter. He was caught on CCTV, and was hounded by the media about the incident. I told the reporter that such behaviour would not be allowed in Britain, as Members of Parliament could not get away with using their influence in such a way. Two days later, a motion was passed in the Bulgarian Parliament to introduce a standards and privileges committee based on the British model. That Parliament has therefore learned a great deal from us over the years.

Keith Vaz: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was definitely not going to dilate on this point. However, I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman. He has a huge role to play in his party because of his background. First, he needs to tell to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) how to pronounce his name, because the hon. Gentleman said that he did not know how to do so. Secondly, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and all other hon. Members have a role to play in ensuring that our constituents understand the benefits of the enlargement outlined in the Bill. This is not just about passing a Bill in the House. It is also about campaigning on the issue of enlargement, and we need to ensure that that happens. The hon. Gentleman has a role to play in ensuring that it happens in his party.
	On clause 2, I know that the Minister needs to consult the Home Office, and that the Home Office will have to consult the Department for Work and Pensions, but I believe that we need to be much clearer on the issue. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot make a decision on it today, or give us an answer on it when he winds up the debate. This involves a long process, but it is important that we have clarity on the matter. He says that we must wait until nearer the time of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria for a decision to be made, and I understand why he does so. All that I ask is that we do not wait until a few weeks before accession, by which time the Opposition will have built up the kind of hysteria that we have just heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He spoke of the relatively low wages of policemen, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) reminded us of the low wages of other people.
	That will build up over the next two years. We must lance the boil at an early stage. I know that we cannot have a decision now, but it is in the interests of Romania and Bulgaria, in the interests of our entry clearance operation and in the interests of the Home Office, which still has to deal with the cases of people from Romania and Bulgaria—principally the Roma who are already in this country and seeking asylum—for the matter to be clarified to some extent. Let us not leave it until everyone becomes hysterical again; let us have a decision as near as possible to the final decision. Otherwise we shall be left where we were on 1 May 2004, rushing legislation through the House and causing upsets among our European partners just before they come into the European Union. Clarity would be very helpful.
	My final point is the one made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. We must engage with the British people on the European issue. I know that the Minister has travelled a great deal over the last six months, and he performs his job superbly as the champion of enlargement. I raised this point in passing with the Foreign Secretary during Question Time today. It is all very well going to Alabama and bonding with Condoleezza Rice, but we have the presidency at least for the next eight weeks. We are pushing forward legislation before most of our EU partners. Let us engage with the British people. I know that it will be difficult to do it before the end of the year, but let us go out and campaign on Europe. Let us be proud of being good Europeans, and let us continue to show the leadership that we have shown over the past eight years in Europe so that we can fashion the future according to our vision of what we want to happen.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the opportunity to speak about, and to express my happiness at supporting, a Bill that paves the way for the future EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania.
	I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), although I hope that that does not worry him too much. By coincidence, I too was in Bulgaria in 1985. I did not know my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) then, but it is possible that we both went shopping in Sofia at the same time. Like him, I found the Bulgarians very charming, and the visit was a wonderful experience. However, I should say that I was merely enjoying a skiing holiday, not doing anything useful.
	I want to talk about clause 2, which deals with workers' freedom of movement, and the regulation of workers from abroad. It is essential that all workers, foreign or otherwise, are regulated in their employment, and that they have the proper documentation and pay tax and national insurance. Foreign workers should be paid properly, at a rate comparable with domestic workers. They should not be used as a cheap labour force to undermine the wages and living standards of workers in the home country.
	It is fine to use foreign workers to fill skills gaps and to make up employment levels when there is a shortage of labour. That happened here after the war, when a lot of people arrived to do the jobs for which we could not find workers. Many of the people who stayed here live in my constituency, and I believe that the experience has been a happy and valuable one for both us and them. Their presence has made ours a more diverse society, which is a good thing.
	We should encourage foreign workers to join trade unions, and ensure that their conditions, protections and standards are the same as those enjoyed by their counterparts from this country. They must not be exploited, or used as a weapon to undermine wages in Britain.
	Labour flexibility is not acceptable if it becomes merely a way to drive down wages. That could lead to difficulties in the EU. I have told the House before about my holiday in Portugal a few years ago, when I saw a building site with a sign in Portuguese that said "No Flexible Labour". If flexibility were to pose a threat to workers, it could lead to political changes that would go against the trend of the EU at the moment. Regulation must be used and properly enforced, for the protection of foreign workers and of our employment standards.
	I welcome the prospect of EU membership for Bulgaria and Romania. It will benefit those countries, and the EU as a whole. I strongly favour enlargement, as I think that it will change the nature of the EU, making it a much looser arrangement of democratic states. Indeed, that has happened already.
	That is my vision for the future of Europe. I do not want the EU to become a superstate, or an organisation driven by the Commission or the European Central Bank. I want there to be mutual co-operation across Europe between democratically elected Governments and their peoples.
	I think that we can all accept that vision, as it allows a variety of approaches to economic management. Each European nation should be free to choose its approach democratically, not have it imposed from outside.
	I hope that the process of enlargement will continue. There is no doubt that Bulgaria and Romania are European countries. Their culture is European, and they have made great contributions to European history and art. Before the second world war, Bucharest was regarded as the Paris of the east. Romania's language is derived from Latin, and its culture and tastes are like those of other European countries. Indeed, my favourite pianist is the Romanian Dinu Lipatti, and I own many CDs of his wonderful playing. Bulgarian music is equally marvellous: we have many links and associations with Bulgaria and Romania, and we will feel very at home with them in the EU.
	As I have said many times in this Chamber, Europe's problems have to do with economics, and primarily with agriculture. The economies of both Bulgaria and Romania depend heavily on agriculture. They are big producers of agricultural products, and it is possible that they stand to benefit from the CAP. Of course, it is not being extended to them immediately, or even to countries that are already in the EU. There is a serious problem with the CAP, which causes distortions in fiscal transfers across the EU. It is coming to the end of its life. It has to be challenged, because it continues to make rich countries net recipients of budget funds and poorer countries net contributors. That process could get worse unless we abolish it.
	There is much talk of reform, and we have had many reforms of the CAP, but it has not essentially changed and still has a distorting effect. It is unfair to have a CAP benefiting rich western European nations and not being extended generously to poorer eastern European nations with large agricultural sectors. I look forward to a world in which there is no CAP and in which we have our own domestic agriculture policies and are free to buy relatively cheap food from Romania and Bulgaria, among others. That would be a sensible way forward after the CAP has gone.
	The future of the budget must be based on equity. If it is equitable to every member of the EU, we will all support it. At the moment, it is not. The only way to make it equitable is for receipts and contributions to the budget to be proportionate to our relative prosperity, so that rich nations are considerably greater net contributors and poorer nations perhaps net recipients, although it may just be that all of us make contributions but richer countries pay proportionately more. If the budget is related to our prosperity, everyone will think it fair and it will be objectively equitable. The CAP makes that impossible, and it should go.
	I would also argue strongly that nations—Bulgaria and Romania, in particular—should be able to choose their own macroeconomic policies. They should be able to choose how to run their economies to make sure that they grow. They should not have imposed on them from outside a particular model of economic management that might be to their disadvantage, and which, I think, would be. If they could retain their own currencies for the foreseeable future, they could choose an appropriate parity, which would be to their advantage. If they could choose their own interest rates to suit their domestic economies, that, too, would be sensible. If they could choose their own fiscal policies—levels of taxation and public spending—that would be a good way forward. If they were not told that they could not use state aid to develop their industries, that would be a good thing. If the EU says that they cannot use state aid, that might cause them not to grow and could damage their economies, making it more difficult for them to attain the kind of living standards we take for granted in western Europe. The European Union should butt out for the time being on those matters for those states, and for some existing member states.
	The Bulgarian lev is, apparently, pegged to the euro at the moment. I suggest that pegging is fine, but becoming a single currency, which gives no possibility of flexing the value of one's currency, would be a terrible mistake for Bulgaria and Romania, especially in their present relatively weak economic situations. A pegged currency is very different from a single currency. The peg can change from time to time, and we in Britain ought to retain that position, too.
	Some new member states have had unhappy economic experiences, which are causing political difficulties for them. The same could be seen in Bulgaria and Romania if we are not careful. I look at Hungary, which has undoubtedly prospered in the sense that living standards have risen overall, but in which there has been a great division of rich and poor with 40 per cent. of the Hungarian people now living in relative poverty in spite of its having done relatively well. What one sees in some countries is apparently socialist Governments who have been driven to take the neo-liberal approach of privatising and liberalising their economies, resulting in great and growing disparities of income and wealth.
	Meanwhile, conservative Opposition parties have said that they do not want more privatisation or liberalisation but want to protect their welfare states. That is what is happening in Hungary. The astonishing thing there is that a conservative Opposition are being supported by a Marxist workers' party against the nominal socialist party in Government. The New Statesman last week speculated that if Mrs. Thatcher was in Hungary, she would vote for the socialist party, never mind its name, because it is pursuing extreme neo-liberal economics. The leader of the socialist party has made considerable sums of money out of privatisation. In any case, those are not the sort of policies that should be imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. They should be allowed to manage their own economies to maximise economic growth so that they may attain living standards similar to ours.
	If we impose those economic policies on those countries and their economies are damaged, with greater disparities between people's incomes, it could breed disillusion that would not be healthy for the future of the European Union. If we want to be happy together, we must ensure that living standards rise in those countries, that we converge further, and that the poor are not left out.

Anthony Steen: I first wish to make it plain that I support the Second Reading of the Bill and enlargement of the European Union. However, I wish to make several observations. Romania and Bulgaria will join the EU automatically in 2008, but Romania is hell bent on enrolling a year early and it has moved heaven and earth already to get itself into a better position to meet the acquis—all 29 chapters of it. Although it has been free of communism for only 16 years, its transformation from a highly bureaucratic, centrally controlled country to a liberated free market democratic state is truly remarkable.
	The Romanians have pinned all their hopes on a 2007 admission to the EU. They believe it to be important for their psyche, their whole approach to life and their people, but as last week's comprehensive monitoring report by the European Commission makes clear there is still some way to go they comply with all the necessary standards. Whenever Romania does join, it will be one of the poorest countries in the EU, with state monopolies still controlling vast areas of activity, and a poor quality of life evident outside Bucharest, which serves as a reminder of the legacy of communism.
	There is a further reason why accession in 2007 is desirable, and that is because if Romania is deemed not ready then, there is a real danger that it might feel that the west and the EU had shunned it. The country could then sink into instability caused by unchecked corruption and the growth of widespread criminal activity. The present Administration has marketed the EU as the saviour to Romania's problems. There is a danger that some may feel let down when the Elysian fields do not materialise. But Romania has rejected the east and elected to look west. We must not disappoint it.I visited Romania both as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and more recently as a member of the all-party European Union enlargement group, which enabled us to meet not just the Prime Minister, but also the Leader of the Opposition and many cabinet ministers. I subsequently spent five days as a tourist, visiting historic cities and exploring lesser known agricultural areas.
	The Romanians believe that the EU Commission may be giving them tougher obstacles to overcome than it gave the 10 countries that joined the EU in May 2004. They argue that all eastern European countries share similar problems and that a more intense spotlight is now being focused on Romania and Bulgaria because they are just two new entrants rather than 10. The need to comply with the 29 acquis chapters before accession has provided the necessary impetus and vital motivation to embark upon an enormous programme of change. The Commission's concern and ours should be that once Romania and Bulgaria have been admitted into the EU, there is precious little that can be done to force the pace so that the reforming zeal is maintained. The House tends to forget that there are only 5,000 more officials in the European Commission in Brussels than employees, full and part time, in Devon county council. There is, therefore, a limited number of EU officials to enforce the requirements once Romania and Bulgaria become full members.
	Chapter 24 deals with co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. Schengen and the EU external borders are highlighted as an area of serious concern, as is the fight against fraud and corruption, which is well known and well documented. There are signs that the situation is improving quite dramatically, but no high level official or Government Minister has yet been prosecuted and, as the monitoring report highlights, increased efforts are needed to ensure compliance in the areas of money laundering, judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters, the fight against drugs, police co-operation and the fight against organised crime.
	Corruption is not perhaps surprising when many public officials earn less than £1 an hour, and it is not unknown for some to earn only 50p an hour. Bribes are very tempting, whether to people in the local police force or in local councils who control local permissions of one sort or another. We were told that a few years ago a bribe test of the police resulted in 70 per cent. failing. That has now fallen to some 40 per cent. However, some argue that until Romania joins the EU and starts to prosper materially, corruption will continue, including in the police and other forces.
	The US Department of State's report on the trafficking in persons, released in June this year, said:
	"Corruption among law enforcement authorities remained a serious problem".
	However, progress is being made, and in 2004, Romania's lead police anti-corruption agency investigated 81 police officials implicated in trafficking-related corruption; imposed administrative sanctions on 31 officials; dismissed 10 officials; and sent 40 cases forward for prosecution.
	Before Romania is admitted, it is essential that it sorts out its external border controls. Romania will form the frontier between the EU and Russia. It is a massive border, and it is Romania's weak spot. Once Romania joins the EU, its easternmost border will form part of the border to the entire EU area and we must all recognise our interest and responsibility in securing it. The EU must give massive funding, as well as provide border patrols, if security is to be increased to an acceptable standard. Currently the border controls are lax and people can come over from the east, from countries such as Ukraine or Moldova, without difficulty. Romania is very much a railway station—a transit area, just as Albania is a transit centre for southern Europe. The 2005 second annual report by the International Organisation for Migration on victims of trafficking in south-eastern Europe said:
	"Romania is a country of origin for trafficking in persons. It is also a transit country for trafficking from the former Soviet Union."
	In 2003, a United Nations report listed Romania as one of the top 10 countries of origin for trafficking in the world. Internal trafficking is also a problem in Romania, with children from the poor north-eastern region of the country being sold by their families to work on farms in more prosperous regions. However, the vast majority of victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation were trafficked from Romania to EU countries. It is vital, therefore, that we develop a coherent, effective, EU-wide strategy for coping with and eliminating trafficking.
	The trafficking in persons report from the US Department of State stated:
	"The Government of Romania does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking."
	The report acknowledged that
	"however, it is making significant efforts to do so".
	The Romanian Government have significantly increased trafficking convictions and sentences. In 2004, 103 traffickers were convicted, up from only 49 in 2003. However, those prosecuted are not the main players but those lower down the hierarchy, and thus the criminal networks are yet to be broken. The Government also created a national network of 52 judges specialised in trafficking cases, one for each tribunal and court of appeal. More needs to be done with regards to the screening, identification and referral of trafficking victims, as Romania has no centralised mechanism. In addition, it has no common methodology for the documentation of cases.
	Child trafficking is something that should concern the whole House. What one gathers from those in the know is that there is a rise in child trafficking on the pretext of inter-country adoption and a rise in the trade of young women and young boys. The Romanian Government have made amazing efforts to crush the trade in children, but in doing so, they have seriously antagonised organised criminal associations, which have tended to move out of Romania into Moldova or Ukraine. Let us remember that it is believed that, between 1991 and 2001, 30,000 children were so-called adopted and £1.18 billion changed hands.
	The problem is even more severe in Bulgaria, where the fastest growing sector of organised crime is that involving children, of which the report makes specific mention. The organised criminal gangs that arrange for children to be sold on the internet under the guise of adoption are highly disciplined and ruthless. We are talking about criminal networks and corruption on a very grand scale, which Governments are virtually powerless to control.
	The global purchasing of people is a worldwide scourge, which will be brought to the fore in Europe once Romania and Bulgaria have attained full membership of the EU. It is necessary to consider a comprehensive policy for both destination and source countries and to ensure that anti-trafficking legislation is effectively implemented, of which the fight against corruption is an essential part. In granting Romania and Bulgaria membership, the EU must simultaneously put in safeguards on the corruption front. Chinese walls can and should be put in place, and stay in place, until corruption is squeezed out, rather than giving those trafficking gangs free access throughout Europe.
	Chapter 7 deals with agriculture. One must not forget that a large percentage of the population of Romania is still engaged in agriculture. It will take many years before sufficient funds are available for modern technology to make the best use of land. The distribution of food is minimal and food is routinely sold by farmers from horse and carts at the roadside. The Commission points out that, although Romania generally meets its commitments on a number of issues, increased efforts are needed on a number of others, including animal welfare, trade in live animals and animal products, and there is serious concern about animal disease control and public health.
	I recently witnessed appalling animal cruelty in a horse market in Transylvania, where a horse was so cruelly handled and pulled so fiercely on his reins that his mouth was pouring with blood as he trotted down the road. We now have the bird flu scare, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals seems concerned with the way that the Romanians are killing poultry deemed a possible risk by throwing them alive into incinerators.
	I mention those issues not to find reasons for keeping Romania out until 2008, but to encourage the Romanian Government to do everything in their power, by changing laws now and helping to change attitudes; nor is it necessary to bring Romania and Bulgaria into the EU at the same time. One could join in 2007, and another in 2008. If we in the more prosperous countries are to help those who are less advantaged and raise their standards of living, we need to ensure that human trafficking and animal cruelty become things of the past: an important step forward for millions of people formally under the communist yoke.

Michael Connarty: I fully accept that. I have always found that the hon. Gentleman's activities on the European Scrutiny Committee are in a positive vein, unlike those of some of his colleagues who travelled with us and encouraged people in other countries not to join the EU. Their admonition fell on deaf ears everywhere that we went, but he has never been guilty of saying such things. We should accept that there are problems and I shall mention some of them.
	We should ask why Romania is joining in 2007, rather than 2008, which could have been an option. One of the problems is that Romania will have to run very hard to catch up with our demands on tackling institutionalised fraud, whether small-scale bribery or large-scale fraud. When we met the President of Romania, he admitted that fraud was a major problem that he was going to tackle. The hon. Member for Totnes omitted to mention the fact that there was a rather garish picture of a former Minister in manacles on the front page of the national newspaper, which said—I believe that this was the translation—that he was shouting, "The President of Romania has put me here, and I will ensure that he ends up in the same prison." The current President is clearly taking on board the need to tackle large-scale corruption and fraud in the institutions that previously ran the country. If his record as mayor of Bucharest is anything to go by, he will challenge and beat down that high level of corruption.
	It would be unreal of us to think that this is just about the relationship between Romania and the EU. Senior members of its Parliament made candid comments about the reason why Romania would join in 2007. They said that they would offer the USA a base there. When I asked, "Do you mean a NATO base?" they said, "No, a USA base in Romania." If that is part of the equation, I am concerned. If Romania is to become involved in international defence, that should happen through NATO and it should be done in a way that does not single out any country as a partner in defence matters, while it is applying to become our partner in economic matters. Although I welcome the accession clause, I hope that the Minister will clarify whether a base in Romania will be offered to an individual country outwith the EU, rather than NATO, which is our common alliance. It might be that the politicians were expressing only an aspiration, but if that became a reality, it would viewed negatively. It would be seen that there was a false contract between the EU and Romania if the purpose of speeding up accession was to hasten the provision of any form of military base for the United States of America.

Daniel Kawczynski: I will support the Bill, but want to take the opportunity to sound a note of caution. I first visited Romania in 1982 and have visited it a number of times since. On that first visit, we were shown many villages—the Potemkin villages—that were special and of a much better standard than others throughout Romania. Foreigners were shown a restricted amount of the country. We were only meant to see the nice bits and not the problems that it faced. Nevertheless, I could still see the terrible fear in people's eyes as they lived under a tyrannical regime under communism.
	The problem with Ceausescu is that he was propped up by many western Governments. In fact, the Labour Government, under James Callaghan, insisted that Her Majesty the Queen put him up in Buckingham palace and gave him one of the highest orders. It was not just the Labour Government who were responsible, however. Others in the western world also ostentatiously fêted Ceausescu.
	When I visited Romania after the fall of communism in 1990, I was amazed at the differences. I walked along the boulevard of the Victory of Socialism, which is twice as long and twice as wide as the Champs-Elysées. It was built by Nicolae Ceausescu as a road to his palace, which is the biggest building in the world next to the Pentagon. Despite that ostentatiousness and the tremendous luxury in which he lived, the people of Romania were extremely poor. I saw people queuing for basic foodstuffs. The electricity supply was intermittent and, in many flats, only one electric light bulb could be turned on at various times of the day. It was George Orwell's "1984". It was a terrible society.
	Although I saw how ghastly that society was and although I think that Mr. Ceausescu was an appalling man, I am concerned about the way in which he and his wife were executed on 24 December 1989. No matter how bad other evil brutes are, such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, they are given a proper hearing and trial, but President Ceausescu was tried with his wife, Elena, in a kangaroo court. He was sentenced to death almost immediately and did not have the right to a proper lawyer. The way in which the Romanian authorities carried out his trial and execution was wrong. I hope that they have learned their lesson from that.
	I am pleased that Romania can join the nations of a new modern Europe, but there are problems. Communism has taken its toll. It had a destructive impact, not just on Romania, but on most European countries that experienced it. I saw it at first hand as a child in Poland. However, few of us will have forgotten the images that we saw on television in 1990 of the orphanages in Romania and the appalling way in which those children were treated. Those institutions still exist. Outside modern Bucharest, children are kept in state institutions that are badly heated and lit, where they receive poor care. There are awful cases of neglect.
	There is also terrible environmental pollution. The Ploesti oil fields and other industrial complexes have devastated the local environment. I fear that Great Britain and the other EU countries will have to stump up a great deal of money to modernise those facilities and ensure that the environment is brought up to the modern standard that one would expect of an EU country.
	The infrastructure is a shambles. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) stated that he was only in Bucharest for seven hours when he was Minister for Europe. That is the problem. Many Ministers get whisked to Bucharest, no doubt stay in a lovely hotel and see the best bits of Romania, but they do not see the shambolic state that it is in. If they were taken to villages like Scornicesti, Timisoara and Arad, they would see how backward the country is and the amount of money that it will need.

Angus Robertson: I am pleased to speak in a debate that has been at times—let me put it this way—rather detailed. It has homed in on some of the minutiae of accession and enlargement, and sometimes the big picture has been missing. That is a great shame because this is a truly historic development that we should welcome with open arms, but unfortunately some of the enthusiasm has been rather muted.
	In the years ahead we will be reuniting our continent. The countries in question, and the previous accession countries, have not been knocking on the door of Brussels for a handout; they have been wanting a hand up. They want to work hard, earn their keep and play their part in our continent. We should never forget that the benefits that will flow to those countries through membership of the European Union are mirrored by the benefits that we will enjoy here.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) rightly pointed out that it would be of benefit to Members to travel widely in the region. I had the good fortune to work in central Europe for over seven years when I was a diplomatic affairs journalist during the 1990s. Travelling back there as I do now, I can look back and compare what is now with what was then at the beginning of the 1990s. The transformation is extraordinary, and not just in the EU 10 of recent accession states.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) mentioned the challenges of border controls. I well remember standing on an Austrian police boat on the Neusiedler See doing a report for the BBC's "Correspondent" programme about those concerns. That border between Austria and Hungary was to be the outer border of the European Union. The Austrians managed that change; the Hungarians have now managed it; and I am sure that, although work needs to be done in Romania and Bulgaria, they will manage it too. I think that the glass is half full.
	Changes have occurred not just in the countries that have joined the EU; the changes in Romania and Bulgaria since the fall of communism have been profound. A point that has not been made, but which I shall come to later, is that the impact of accession is not simply on the countries in question; it has a ripple effect in their immediate neighbours. There has been no talk yet of the near neighbourhood policy and the consequences for the countries that border Romania and Bulgaria.
	I must confess that, like many people, I do not know a tremendous amount about the culture of Romania and Bulgaria. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke in glowing terms about the culture of both nations, and I am sure that there is much to commend it. My impression of the countries was formed through sport. I well remember, in Romania's case, Nadia Comaneci, Ilie Nastase, Gheorghe Hagi and many others.
	I had to look in a book to find out that Romania is the home of the most eastern Romance people. They have emerged from the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires and the Ceausescu regime. They have tremendous cultural breadth, including not only the general Romania population but the Hungarian minority, the Roma and Sinti people, those that remain of the Transylvanian Saxon population, Vlachs and many other minority groups about which we know little. They will be part of our European home, and that is something we should celebrate. However, we should look closely at the map and realise that the EU will have a border with Ukraine, Serbia and Moldova. We have already had mention of Transnistria. Those are challenges, and we shall need to look closely at the consequences of what is happening.
	Mention has been made of the Commission's 2005 monitoring report. We should not ignore it because, despite my enthusiasm and the fact that I think this is a tremendous, historic development, there are challenges. On the political requirements, the Commission says:
	"Romania continues to meet them",
	but there needs to be progress in public administration, in tackling corruption, in improving the situation of disabled and mentally ill people and in fighting trafficking in human beings. Those are challenges on which the Romanian authorities need to deliver. They should be aware that those of us who are keen for their accession expect them to deliver and to improve the situation for their citizens in those vital areas.
	Bulgaria's position is similar to that of Romania. There is my football analogy of growing up with Balakov and Stoitchlov. I did not know much about Bulgaria's culture, but it is the first Slavic nation state in history. It has managed successfully to emerge from the shadow of Ottoman domination and Soviet domination, so it has a rich tapestry. Bulgaria has a significant Turkish community, which has formed the minority coalition partner of most Bulgarian Governments since the fall of communism.
	Bulgaria's borders should make us think about the consequences EU enlargement. For example, it has borders with Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Romania. I shall return to that matter after talking briefly about the challenges that Bulgaria faces.
	The Commission has set challenges for both Romania and Bulgaria. As good friends, it is right for us to point out our expectation that they deliver on their fight against organised crime and corruption, and the support of human rights protection and of minorities, especially the integration of the Roma minority. That was highlighted in the Commission report only last week.
	Before moving on to the near neighbourhood policy and the borders, I want to talk briefly about clause 2 and the movement of labour. It is right and proper that we should consider the Government's plans as they emerge in terms of the speed with which the labour market should be opened. I counsel the Minister to be highly sceptical of advice from Conservative Members on this issue. During the previous Session there was hysteria about the prospect of giving workers from the 10 accession states the freedom to come to the UK. That opposition would have had devastating consequences in my constituency and many others. The example of hard-working Poles and others is a credit to their homelands and to their homes in Moray and many other parts of the country. I am sorry that little or no mention was made of the opportunity, or the potential benefit for the economy, that is provided by hard-working people. There has been no praise for the hard-working people who have come here. I shall be happy to send a copy of the comments that have been made by Conservative Members to local employers in my constituency so that they are fully aware of the attitudes of the main UK Opposition party.

Greg Hands: For the first time, under the Bill, the EU will reach the Black sea. For the first time, Greece will have an overland connection to the rest of the Community. This is not a tidying-up exercise; it is a significant expansion of the EU in its own right. I am delighted to be called to participate in the debate, because I have taken a strong personal interest in the affairs of both Romania and Bulgaria since my first visit to both countries in 1988 as a student. My recollections are similar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).
	If I had been asked at that time how long it might take for those two countries to join the EEC, as it was then known, I would probably have said 15 to 20 years, and possibly longer for Romania. That has proved to be more or less correct. I am sure that the wait has been right for the EU, and that it has probably been helpful to Bulgaria and Romania.
	I clearly recall my first visit to those countries in 1988, arriving at the Gare du Nord in Bucharest after a long slow train journey from Budapest. The journey was memorable for two things—poverty and corruption. The Ceausescu regime was rampant, demolishing whole districts of Bucharest in the most controversial manner possible and creating agri-industrial complexes in the countryside. Today, such regimes exist only in North Korea or Zimbabwe, but the Ceausescu regime was in the premier league of tyranny. The poverty was incredible for a European country. Children begged at the side of the train for chewing gum, and even tourists had almost nothing to eat. I survived on tomatoes for an entire week, and gained the impression that a command economy was operating. The week after, people probably lived on cucumbers.
	Corruption was evident as soon as I arrived at the border. The price of a visa was hiked up arbitrarily, from 40 Deutschmarks to $40, then to £40, because I was a UK citizen. I recall Romania as a beautiful but depressive and slightly volatile country. The only place to go in the capital at night was a rundown 1930s-style club called the Athenée Palast, which offered truly ghastly entertainment. I believe, however, it is the club mentioned by the late Alan Clark in an interesting passage in his diaries about his trip to Romania in the late 1980s. The people were naturally friendly but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, it was a country run by fear. It was significantly poorer than Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and even the Soviet Union.
	The status of minorities was extremely bad. I spent one afternoon in Transylvania with an elderly ethnic German who had been given electrode treatment in the 1960s because of his views and ethnicity, and was in a sad state. The atmosphere was oppressive. The only bookshop that we saw was stocked entirely with the volumes of Elena Ceausescu. The wife of the hated dictator was a chemist who specialised, bizarrely, in plagiarising the works of other scientists, which she claimed as her own. The relief caused by the December revolution in Romania was palpable, and a few weeks afterwards I received a 17-page letter from a Romanian I had met describing the conversation that he wished he had had with me. For an MP, a 17-page letter is a nightmare, but it was a revelation to me as a student, because it was a moving personal testimony that described in detail the nightmare of a life wasted at the expense of communism.
	Bulgaria was also in a bad way, suffering from a stagnant economy and the grim regime of Todor Zhivkov, a Brezhnev-like figure. It had forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks in a sad precursor to worse expulsions in the Balkans in the 1990s. Bulgaria was not subject to the obsessive and crazy schemes of Ceausescu. In fact, one of the Romanians' main grievances was their perception that they had fallen behind even Bulgaria. I returned to Romania in March 1990, when the revolution was only a few weeks old. The streets were filled with armoured cars, and it was still dangerous, with soldiers, paramilitaries and political activists all mixed together in a volatile atmosphere. Ironically, the "people's palace" that Ceausescu inhabited had just been opened up to the people, but the people did not like what they saw, and the experience evoked yet more hatred for the recently deceased dictator. The country was moving towards the leadership of the National Salvation Front, or FSN, and continuing single-party rule under Ion Iliescu. Many people simply wanted to leave, and I was almost crushed to death on the Bucharest to Timisoara train, which was full of people wanting to go to Belgrade before Yugoslavia introduced a new tougher visa regime for Romanian citizens. Only a few years later, of course, the flow was reversed.
	Romania and Bulgaria have both had a tough passage since 1989. Fortunately, Britain has been a great friend to both of them since the beginning of democratisation. In researching my speech, I looked at the debates in the House in 1989 and 1990. I was struck by the speed of the Government's response under Margaret Thatcher. For example, in January 1990, they announced the setting-up of the know-how fund to use British expertise to advise public and private sectors in the emerging democracies such as Romania and Bulgaria. Possible membership of the European Community was first mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the present chairman of the Conservative party, in the House on 31 January 1990.
	Both Bulgaria and Romania have made huge progress in the 15 years since. They are not fashionable parts of eastern Europe, and they do not have any cities as picturesque as Prague. Unlike Poland, they have not produced a powerful diaspora, and they lack geographical immediacy. Neither of them have ever been a democracy, in contrast to Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the 1930s. Throughout the first part of the 1990s, Bulgaria was wracked by political instability and strikes. The former communists remained a powerful influence. Although the end of the decade was more stable, there was little tangible progress in economic reform until the arrival of the Simeon Government in 2001. King Simeon's Government deserve to be thanked and acknowledged. A student whom I employed and helped to train on Wall Street in 1993 went on to become Deputy Finance Minister in that Government in 2001, so in a small way I can say that I helped.
	Romania, too, has suffered from long bouts of instability, poorly executed reforms and so on. In the early 1990s, as hon. Members have said, the country grabbed the headlines for all the wrong reasons because of its treatment of children, especially orphans. Crucially, both countries could have gone down the route to demagoguery, as happened in nearby Belgrade and, to some extent, Zagreb, but they wisely chose not to do so. Both were damaged economically by the sanctions on Yugoslavia—Bulgaria was even hit by a cruise missile—and both helped us out in Iraq. The political leaders and the peoples of the two countries deserve to be congratulated on the progress that they have made in those 15 years. We are grateful for the support they have given us on issues important to the United Kingdom.
	Significant problems remain, and I shall address them briefly, as other hon. Members have already discussed them. First, corruption needs to be reduced. When I visited Sofia in 1996, gangster culture and Government corruption were very much in evidence. I met a man who said that he ran Sofia airport. He said that the Americans were terrible at business, because they would not pay the price necessary to secure a contract. He contrasted their approach to business with that of the Germans and Italians, so it was an enlightening conversation. Corruption is still in evidence, and it is probably worse than it is in the 10 countries that joined the EU in the past year. However, it has been reduced significantly in the past 10 years, which is an encouraging trend.
	Secondly, as has been said, efforts must be made to continue to improve the status of minorities, notably the Hungarian minority in Romania, the Roma in Bulgaria and Romania, the few remaining Germans in Romania, the Turks in Bulgaria, and the and Vlachs in Romania. Those minorities add a great deal to the culture of those countries. Thirdly, we must accelerate progress on free market reforms. Fourthly, progress should be made in reducing violent crime, especially in Bulgaria, which has suffered from assassinations. Finally, both states must boost co-operation with the west on issues such drugs and people trafficking.

Anne McIntosh: I have made my point and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has conceded it.
	I warmly welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), with whom I had the pleasure to serve in the European Parliament. As he said, Romania in particular needs our help. He told some moving tales of religious persecution that struck a chord with all hon. Members. He did not need to remind us that he is not a fan of the European Commission because we have heard that on several occasions. However, he stirred the Opposition's hearts by saying that it was better to broaden the European Union by bringing in new countries than to deepen it. I join him in wishing Bulgaria and Romania well and I hope that he shares our vision of a more open, more flexible and wider EU.
	I have a high personal regard for the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—former Ministers for Europe are growing in number so I hope that that is not a bad sign for the current Minister. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that the Bill was special and that it united all parties. I could not agree more. Perhaps he will reflect on my remarks about the Labour party's position on previous enlargements and thus form a more mature view of the Opposition's position. He referred especially to clause 2 on the worker registration scheme. I hope that he accepts that I have dealt with that point.
	I listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the significant success that the various stages of EU enlargement represent for UK foreign policy. I concur with his conclusion that a phenomenal amount of work remains to be done but, as he said, the success of the EU and our membership of it depends on our being competitive. No one should owe any member of the EU a living. We must be competitive and work hard at that.
	My hon. Friend also said that we need to reform the common agricultural policy and I agree that we expect great things of the Doha round. I urge the Minister for Trade to convey a strong message from the House about that. Our expectations of a good deal are high. I shall have a private word with him afterwards about the sugar beet growers in the Vale of York.
	I was delighted to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who again drew attention to the need to reform agriculture and spread wealth around. He referred especially to poverty levels in Romania and Bulgaria.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned border controls and especially the fact that we are currently asking a lot of the Commission, given the limited number of officials at its disposal.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was one of several hon. Members who referred to anxieties about the Roma people. We take that matter seriously and I hope that Government Front Benchers note his remarks and my concurrence with them. The position of all the minorities, especially the Roma people, has to be tackled. I should like the Government to outline a timetable this evening for their endeavour to do that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) spoke with genuine passion and experience. He referred to a previous Labour Government's support for the former communist regime and the genuine fear that that inspired.

Anne McIntosh: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and positive contribution. We have asked a question, and we would like to know from the Minister whether the workers from Romania and Bulgaria will enjoy exactly the same terms as those from the 10 new member states. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will accept the point that we are making.
	I would also like to ask the Minister whether the two applicant countries will have the ability to meet the acquis communautaire in the same time frame that applied to the 10 countries that have recently joined the European Union. Also, will he give the House his response to the points raised about avian flu? At least two ducks have been caught in Romania, and there is a fear that the infection could spread from migratory birds. Several of my hon. Friends have raised the very real question of inadequate border controls, and those of us who have poultry producers—and, indeed, a number of wild ducks—living in our constituencies want to know how the Minister will address that issue.
	Several points remain to be addressed, including the free movement of workers, and the vexed question of people trafficking. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned waitresses. A number of young women from Bulgaria and Romania will be applying to work as waitresses in various parts of the European Union, and they could be exploited in other ways. We would like to know what provisions will be put in place to prevent their exploitation in any other way than that intended by the treaty. We also want to hear from the Minister what his Government are doing to bring pressure to bear on Romania and Bulgaria, given that the European Commissioner for Enlargement has noted—particularly in relation to Romania—that no corruption cases have been prosecuted to date. No person, official or otherwise, in those countries should be allowed to be seen to be above the law.
	There are many reasons why we support the Bill, but perhaps the most profound is that we believe that it will be a test of the Government's commitment to the European Union if they are able to answer our questions tonight and during the brief passage that I am sure the Bill will have through the House.

Kim Howells: I welcome this evening's debate. The Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, South (Mr. Alexander) set the tone for what has been a very constructive debate, and I welcome the largely positive speech from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). His words have been echoed by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
	I would also like to say how much I enjoyed and appreciated the speech made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). It was inspirational, and, if I had not already been raised a good Wesleyan in Trecynon in Aberdare, I might have taken up the cause of the Baptists in Romania. But that is a problem for history. I bet history is very glad that I did not take it up.
	I am sure that the representatives of Romania and Bulgaria will have noticed the bipartisan spirit in which this discussion has been conducted. I use the adjective "bipartisan" carefully, because the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was a bit upset earlier by the idea that the discussion was between only three parties. He made a good point. This has been a very good debate, and it has drawn constructive views from all the parties represented in the Chamber tonight. Although I notice that the Welsh nationalists were not present.
	The Romanians and Bulgarians can be sure that this country will welcome them into the European Union as equals and partners. Some concerns have been raised in the debate and I will try to respond to them, but let me start with some general observations. The United Kingdom has always been a strong supporter of enlargement. It is a policy that has consistently enjoyed cross-party support. Indeed, as early as March 1991, the then Prime Minister, John Major, argued that the ultimate destiny of eastern Europeans was membership of the then European Community. It is not difficult to see why.
	Successive enlargements have led to a stronger, more stable and secure Europe. We need only to look at last year's accession of the 10 new member states from eastern and central Europe to see the new economic opportunities brought by enlargement. The prospect of membership helped to boost the candidate countries' economies. We have heard several accounts today, including that of the hon. Member for Moray, of the huge difference that membership has made in a short period of time. Such differences can be contrasted with conditions in some other parts of the world, where countries ought to have made similar progress but have not. This is proof of what the EU can do. Now, we see growth rates as high as 8.3 per cent. in Latvia and 5.3 per cent. in Poland.
	This is a win-win situation. High growth provides job opportunities and helps to raise living standards in the new member states. It also provides new trade and investment opportunities for the United Kingdom. Indeed, since May 2004, British businesses have benefited from new opportunities in a market that has more than 70 million new consumers. A good example is Tesco, which now has 25 supermarkets in Slovakia. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) reminded us, there are 30 million people in Romania and Bulgaria to add to that market. That is an important consideration.
	Enlargement also means that we live in a more secure Europe. It has led to closer co-operation on border control and on tackling organised crime. New member states have brought experience and knowledge of specific regional problems. Their expertise has enabled us to get one step ahead of the drug and human trafficking gangs working through eastern Europe. The arrests of sex traffickers in Sheffield last month came about through co-operation with new member states' police forces, which represented an enormous step forward.
	One of the most striking successes of enlargement is the way in which it has spread democracy and stability across Europe, as has been mentioned today. For many of the new member states, and for Romania and Bulgaria, military and authoritarian rule is still a recent memory. It was only 15 years ago that people took to the streets demanding change. Since then, the prospect of EU membership has driven and supported political developments. For many eastern Europeans, EU membership represents the final step in their country's transformation from dictatorship to democracy. Lech Walesa's statement on 1 May 2004, when Poland became a member state, sums that up well:
	"I fought for our country to recover everything it lost under communism and the Soviets . . . and now my struggle is over. My ship has come to port".
	Romania and Bulgaria are also coming to the end of their journeys. Their paths have not been easy. Tonight, we have heard some of the most moving accounts that we are ever likely to hear of what life was like under those authoritarian regimes. I found them a real inspiration. The House is constantly criticised from outside, but I do not know of any other venue in which Members can come together to share such a wealth of experience. I very much hope that this debate is reported and that the public pay attention to it. It is extremely important that that should happen but, as usual, the Press Gallery is a little empty. No doubt they are all watching the debate on television.
	It is clear that more work still needs to be done. However, the significant changes that have already taken place are a credit to the vision, energy and determination of the peoples and Governments of Romania and Bulgaria. I know that those qualities are there. I was lucky enough to visit Romania three times, and to travel to the industrial areas of the north. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is not here at the moment, but I should like to tell him that there are many hon. Members who have shared that kind of experience.
	The hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Moray, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) spoke about the free movement of workers, which is an important issue. A decision on whether Romanian and Bulgarian nationals will be given complete access to the labour market will be taken closer to their countries' accession.
	It would certainly be premature to make any decision now without sufficient information and planning. A final decision will be made after full consideration of the state of the domestic labour market, other member states' decisions and further analysis of our own experience of the last accession. We will of course seek Parliament's approval before setting the terms of access.
	The worker registration scheme for A8 nationals was an overwhelming success, and I think it will continue to be. We have heard some terrific tributes to it. The policy brought real benefits to the United Kingdom economy. I was glad—as, I know, were others—to hear accounts of the way in which economies far-flung from London had benefited.
	Skills shortages are not limited to rural areas. I remember that we suddenly noticed in Pontypridd that there were a good many Portuguese bus drivers. That was because the bus companies could not recruit drivers in our area, and it has made a big difference. We began to recruit rugby players from Samoa and New Zealand at the same time.
	Many questions were asked today about Romania and Bulgaria's readiness for accession. It is in all our interests for them to be ready for accession on 1 January 2007. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) stressed that that should happen sooner rather than later, and I could not agree with him more.

Geoff Hoon: With the leave of the House, I shall deal with the one point that has been raised. Nominations to replace retiring trustees have come forward in the usual way. In fact, there is no legal obligation to consult any particular organisation, but we do take account of that point when there are new regulations under the scheme. A retired Members association would be an appropriate body to consult in such circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) recognises, however, that the trustees' work is quite onerous. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and disagree with his modesty. He does understand these arrangements, as I have learned to my cost in correspondence with him. It is important that the House have such expertise available to it, and I pay tribute to him and to the other trustees who do such important work for us.
	Given that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) set such a good example, I shall not detain the House any longer.
	Question put and agreed to.

That the draft Consular Fees Act 1980 (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved. —[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Andrew Gwynne: Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate tonight.
	One of the things in this Government's record since 1997 of which I am most proud has been the record investment in education, particularly in terms of capital work to renew our schools. In my Denton and Reddish constituency, we have certainly benefited from that investment. With the money, we are renewing the fabric of all our existing schools. We have a new primary school at Poplar street, Audenshaw, and another new school is planned to replace both Aldwyn school and Hawthorns school, again in Audenshaw. There is a possibility that we will have a brand new primary school in Dukinfield, and it is now also possible that we will have one in Reddish, in the Stockport part of my constituency. It is to the school proposal in Reddish that I wish to draw the attention of the House and of my hon. Friend the Minister.
	For any community, the announcement of a brand new primary school with modern learning facilities and an attached children's centre should be brilliant news. However, that theory takes no account of the total mismanagement of the issue by Stockport council over the summer.
	First, the council's Liberal Democrat executive has decided that the new school will be developed on land at Harcourt street. The land, now a playing field, was a clay extraction site for the former Jackson brickworks. When the clay extraction process ended in the late 1960s, the massive hole in the ground was infilled with all kinds of rubbish. That, of course, was prior to the introduction of the 1974 landfill licensing regime.
	There are no records of precisely what was dumped at Harcourt street. To put my concerns into context, I wish briefly to take the House on a tour of my constituency. In the Tameside part of the seat, we have three other former Jackson Brick clay extraction sites. As at Harcourt street, those sites were all landfilled in the 1970s before the licensing regime existed, and were subsequently converted to playing fields.
	The first site is Guide lane, Audenshaw. I refer the House to a report of Tameside metropolitan borough council, which states:
	"This is a former clay pit and problems with landfill gas migration became apparent in late 1997. Landfill gas alarms were fitted in four properties after gas was found after a routine inspection. Following this the Council received funding to install a venting trench with extraction stacks."
	The next site is Windmill lane, Denton. Tameside council's report adds:
	"The Denton IV landfill site was filled during the 1970s and is known to be producing landfill gas and leachate."
	The final site is Ruby street, Denton, and the report states:
	"This site, a former clay pit, was identified as a problem in 1989 with gas found to be migrating from the site. Tameside received funding to install a gas extraction system across the site. The site remains closed off to the public and responsibility has been transferred to the Environment Agency."
	As if that were not bad enough, there is another Jackson's site at Adswood, in Stockport borough itself. It is also experiencing substantial problems with gassing and leachate. In the report that went to the council's executive, not a single mention was made of the fact that Harcourt street was a former landfill site—even though it is clearly logged on the council's contaminated land register.
	I asked Stockport council what testing had been done to ascertain whether the site was safe for a new primary school. The council presented me with a so-called consultants report. First, the report got the location of the site wrong: it even refers erroneously to ground investigations at Bank Hall service station, Bootle. That is hardly a comfort to those of us seeking assurances from the report.
	It transpires that, on that massive site, just six boreholes had been dug, and that four of those were abandoned at around 3 m because of obstructions in the ground. So the whole basis of the approval of the site hinges on a two-borehole survey. The small print in the consultants report states that the
	"recommendations are based on the information gained at the position of the boreholes. If different conditions are encountered then further advice should be sought".
	Given that only two full-depth boreholes were eventually dug, it is highly probable that different conditions could be encountered on the Harcourt street site.
	Furthermore, I contacted the Environment Agency to see whether the council had sought its advice on this matter. In a letter to me dated 23 September 2005, I was told:
	"However, the Planning Authority has not consulted us about such a proposal on the Harcourt Street site".
	That information was just not good enough to serve as the basis for a decision to site a new school.
	Thanks to a superb presentation by those members of the public who have formed themselves into the North Reddish Action Group, Stockport council's scrutiny committee called in the executive's decision and asked for further site monitoring to be done. Unfortunately, the executive decision for the site was not overturned. The extra tests are crucial, but I fear they will be too little, too late, because the decision is made and we still do not know precisely what was dumped at Harcourt street.
	Nor is it the case that there are not alternative or better sites in the immediate area—there are. Residents themselves have suggested a number of possible alternative sites, and their suggestions should at least, one would have hoped, be given proper consideration by Stockport council. They were not: Stockport's mind was firmly made up in advance of the formal decision. In a letter to me dated 23 August, the director of education told me that one impediment to one of the proposed alternative sites was that it would require a
	"full environmental impact study, possibly costing as much as £100,000."
	The inference is that no study is needed at Harcourt street, which, as we know, was a former landfill site.
	Those are my concerns about the site itself and how the council reached its crazy decision to site a primary school there. I shall turn briefly to matters relating to the two existing primary schools, which are set to close.
	First, we are in the middle of a consultation period on the Fir Tree and North Reddish schools closure proposals. Given the Minister's letter to all local education authority chief executives, dated 6 September, in which she informs them that Members of Parliament are to be considered statutory consultees for school reorganisations in their constituencies, she will understand my dismay that I am still awaiting official notification from Stockport council of the proposal in my constituency.
	Secondly, I firmly dispute the estimated sale price of the Fir Tree site, a substantial site of between four and eight acres, depending on the amount of land the council is willing to have developed. It is only £1.2 million, with outline planning permission for housing thrown in. That is outrageous, despite protestations to the contrary in the local press by the rather ineffectual new council leader. Neighbouring Labour-controlled Tameside aims to raise land values of around £1 million an acre for such land with planning consent and, more importantly, succeeds in getting it. If Stockport sought to do the same, it would raise a substantial sum.
	On the basis of the council's projected capital receipts and the £2.2 million grant from the Government, there is a shortfall in total projected finances. The Lib-Dem Stockport council has excelled itself in committing to borrow the extra money. My point is that if it did not flog off the land on the cheap, it clearly would not need to borrow more money. What a double whammy that is for Reddish residents—the council sells the land to a developer on the cheap, and the residents pay for the privilege.
	Given that appalling situation, I asked for the background information that would support the executive's decision to borrow the additional money. It beggars belief: it is four pages long—one page for each of the two school sites to be sold and two covering pages of officer blurb. So much for the full financial options appraisal I was promised and hoping for.
	I really did despair when it stated, on page 2 that
	"in the time available to prepare this report it was not possible to enter into detailed consultation with the Council's planning, legal and education departments."
	I was lost for words when I read that. The executive approved borrowing on the basis of a back-of-a-fag-packet report, when no detailed consultation with the planning, legal or education departments had even taken place.
	I hope that the Minister can intervene to inject some realism into the project. Stockport council needs to start again, and from the beginning. It is a complete and utter disaster. In the near 10 years in which I served in local government before becoming an MP, I never saw anything bungled quite as this scheme has been. Executive members have railroaded through important decisions on the basis of sloppy reports and inaccurate information—no questions asked, not even a little query. The proposal was just nodded through.
	The community's views have been ridden over roughshod in this shabby, sorry affair. Only in Lib-Dem Stockport could the council turn a good news story into the script for the ultimate disaster movie. I hope that the Minister fully appreciates the concerns of my constituents and that the people of Reddish want a new school with top facilities. The people of Stockport deserve better than their incompetent and rotten Liberal Democrat administration, and the children of Reddish deserve better than a landfill site.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing the debate. Changes in educational provision in an area, particularly when they involve some of the very difficult planning issues that he has outlined, are clearly of great interest to local people, and it is absolutely right that the local Member of Parliament should be involved. Despite his relatively short time in the House, it is clear that my hon. Friend takes his responsibilities to his constituents extremely seriously and is asking for—even if he does not always get—precisely the information that his constituents deserve.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, on 6 September we formalised access to information with respect to educational reorganisations by revising the statutory guidance to local authorities to include local MPs in the lists of those whom the Secretary of State considers should be consulted about changes to schools. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) is in the Chamber, and it was not least because of representations that she made about how she had been treated by her local authority in a similar situation that we made those changes and made very clear the need for local MPs to be consulted about changes to schools. If consultation has started, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that it is frankly not on that he has not been consulted. He should have been.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's recognition of the Government's record investment in education. That will, of course, be continued under the "Building schools for the future" programme and our new primary investment programme. In England, the Government are supporting £5.5 billion-worth of capital investment in schools this year, rising to £6.3 billion-worth in 2007–08. That is a sixfold increase in real terms since 1997, when the figure was under £700 million.
	Stockport's local authority and its schools have been allocated nearly £34 million of capital support over the next three years. Overall, Government support for investment in the primary estate alone should rise to an estimated £1.8 billion in 2007–08. I am therefore pleased that the benefits are being felt in the Denton and Reddish constituency, as well as across the country. As my hon. Friend has outlined, his constituency will benefit from new primary schools at Audenshaw and there is a possibility of a new school at Dukenfield.
	I am sorry and concerned to hear about the problems with the proposed new school in Reddish. I am sure—I hope and expect—that Stockport council will take note of the very important points raised by my hon. Friend and the north Reddish action group. The calling-in of the executive decision by the scrutiny panel is an important sign, but it is clear from what my hon. Friend said that considerable additional questions need to be answered. However, that said, I have to say that the organisation of schools in an area is essentially a matter for local decision. It is the local authority that has the statutory responsibility for planning school places and for proposing to close schools and to open new ones.
	It may be helpful if I say something now about the current arrangements under which the proposals for changes in Reddish have been published. Before the Government took office in 1997, proposals for changes to schools often came to the Secretary of State for decision. We considered that such matters were best decided locally, and a new system was put in place by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That is still the basic legislation today, and the relevant provisions in the case that has been raised by my hon. Friend include the provision that before a local authority may close a school or open a new one, it must first consult in the local area. Among those whom we advise should be consulted are any schools affected by the proposals, and parents and teachers in the area. The guidance was revised in September, when local MPs were added to the list, as were local district and parish councils where the schools are situated. Although the consultation is not a referendum, and the authority is not bound by the results, it is required to take the results of the consultation into account in deciding whether or not to proceed with its proposals.
	If the authority decides to proceed, it is required to publish its proposals in a newspaper circulating in the area, and the notice must give details of how people may object to the proposals or comment on them. Anyone may make representations in response to the notice, whether or not they are directly affected by the proposals. If there are no objections, authorities may decide their own proposals themselves, but if there are objections the proposals go to the local school organisation committee to decide.It is then for the committee to approve or reject the proposals. It may also modify them, after consulting interested parties, but not to the extent that they are effectively new proposals. Modifications are usually to the implementation date, at the request of those bringing forward the proposals.
	The committee may approve proposals only if it is satisfied that any capital necessary to implement them has been secured. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the case of this project the authority has been allocated £2.2 million in targeted capital funding to build a new school, which is the total amount for which the authority bid—so the Government have played their role in ensuring that new provision in the area is properly funded. Separate funding is also available for a children's centre. The total cost of the project is expected to be some £5.5 million, with the authority providing the balance. While the facilities to be provided are a matter for the local authority, we encourage the provision of enhanced facilities, suitable for the 21st century and a range of uses. It is in order to develop such facilities that we are investing record amounts in school capital and ensuring that developments are linked with extended service provision for children and child care.
	I shall continue with the process. If the committee cannot agree unanimously, the proposals are referred to the independent schools adjudicator for decision. The adjudicator's decision is final, subject to the normal operation of the law, for example, as regards judicial review. Since September 1999, Ministers have not been involved in such decisions. The proposals in Reddish will be decided under that system.
	The local authority cannot just close the schools in Reddish and build a new one. I understand that the consultation took place in the summer and that statutory proposals have been published in respect of the changes. I believe that the representation period will end in mid-November and that the school organisation committee is planned to meet to decide the proposals in December. I hear the concerns of my hon. Friend about the extent to which he has been involved in that consultation, and he has clearly shown his ability to represent his constituents. It is crucial that he and other members of the public are fully involved in the consultation on the proposals.
	In deciding the proposals, the committee will be required to decide the issue on its merits, taking into account all relevant factors and the Secretary of State's statutory guidance on proposals to open and close schools. Among the factors that the committee will need to consider are whether the proposals will improve the standards, quality, range and/or diversity of educational provision in the area; whether the proposals represent a cost-effective use of public funds; whether the sale proceeds of redundant sites are to be made available and whether the Secretary of State's consent has been obtained where necessary; the views of parents and other local residents, including those who may be particularly affected by the proposals or who have a particular interest in them; the length and nature of the journey to the alternative provision; the extent to which the proposals take account of the needs of families and the wider community and promote community cohesion; and the overall effect of a closure on the local community.
	My hon. Friend has made it clear that views about these proposals are mixed, to put it mildly. He has also made clear his concerns about the safety of the landfill site and about the scale of the capital receipts from the sale of the Fir Tree site. Although those are not matters for which I have policy responsibility as a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills, they are nevertheless very important in the consideration of the proposals, as he pointed out. If a school is to be built on a landfill site, that site must have a planning use class order that permits educational use. That is a local planning authority responsibility, but it is obviously very important, as my hon. Friend has spelled out, that suitable consultation has taken place with the public and other relevant agencies and that there is certainty and reassurance for his constituents that the site is appropriate. I welcome his information that further investigations may take place—it certainty sounds as though that would be important—and I am sure that he will continue to seek local reassurance about the nature of that site or any other site for the provision of a new school for his constituents.
	On capital receipts, the value of land is, of course, very much dependent on whether it can be developed, but my hon. Friend has drawn on some important evidence about the value of similar pieces of land in surrounding areas. It is true that an acre of land with planning consent for housing development can fetch up to £1 million. Again, although I have no direct ministerial responsibility for such matters, I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets very strict rules to ensure that local authorities only sell land for the full market value—if local authorities want to sell below that value, they need the ODPM's consent. Of course, I share my hon. Friend's concern that, notwithstanding the considerable increases in school capital, value for money in asset sales must also be an important consideration for Stockport in developing such proposals. Hon. Members will also be aware that the Secretary of State's permission would be required for the disposal of any land used as school playing fields.
	Let me return to the procedures for the statutory proposals to close North Reddish infant and junior schools and Fir Tree school and build a new school on the Harcourt street site. As I said, if the school organisation committee cannot decide on the proposals unanimously, they will go to the adjudicator for a decision. The adjudicator would consider the proposals afresh, but would also be required to take into account the result of the consultation, any objections or comments made and the Secretary of State's statutory guidance on the factors that must be taken into account. As I have spelled out, those factors include the views of local people and the cost-effectiveness of the proposals. My hon. Friend raised concerns about those matters in his speech.
	Although I know that I have not been able to satisfy all my hon. Friend's concerns, I hope that I have spelled out the process in which I strongly anticipate that he will be involved. I expect that he will be able to represent his constituents' views throughout the local decision-making process. Given his record up to now, I have no doubt that he will continue his important work to ensure not only that his constituents continue to benefit from increased school investment, but that local plans are carried forward in a way that both involves and reassures his constituents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Nine o'clock.